The first time I read it my mind was full of that pessimism I talked about before and my attention was different. However, after igniting my questioning spirit, I thought I could use it as a source to find the answer I was looking for, and so I decided to read this text a second time. And I wasn't disappointed. Now, it is also important to remember that at this point I had already read the November 5th reading, “Science Is Not Broken,” which, despite the optimistic title, is fraught with the current problems of science and, undoubtedly, may have influenced much of part of my attitude towards science. However, combined, these two readings showed me something different. Science is full of human values ​​and could not exist otherwise. This isn't exactly a bad thing, as sharing the truth would be much more difficult without honesty. On the other hand, when values ​​are distorted - for example when evolutionists showed the scientifically proven superiority of whites over blacks, or when scientists may have created a scientific background for madmen with eugenic theories - values ​​can exert a bad influence on science. “Can we solve the problem of manipulated results in science if we stop using p-values?” The answer, of course, is no. P values ​​are not the problem; the problem is how they are used. All the problems mentioned in “Science is not broken” are generated by human factors: the values ​​in which our current societies are reflected